Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov.
When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 - Figure 2, the SEM photo of "Particle 1". This image is almost exactly the same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube) that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder. Here is the link to the folder of images: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakU&usp=sharing It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors (HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP). I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to identify what place within the reactor the sample represented. The MFMP Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered molded "rod" of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see the Debris photo in the folder linked above). The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure 2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core. Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in the Li-Al molten metal, most of the ash analysis of the Ni isotopic ratios must have been from a sample of the core because that's the only place where there is a significant amount of Ni. Note: Ed's EDX analysis of the solidified Li-Al showed almost 4% Ni, but the percentage did not include the Li (which EDX does not detect), so the actual percentage of Ni in solution may have been more like 2%. Bob Higgins
